How much weight to carry around?

Do you want to walk around with 60kg, 100kg or 150 kg as your body weight? Between 60 to 100kg I think many could still feel quite comfortable to move around with their daily life routines. Beyond that, to carry more than a 100kg of body mass, getting around is not going to be easy and there are many other negative side effects. The first part is to keep and maintain that weight, it is going to be very costly in the consumption of food and medical services/products. Even the whole wardrobe got to be changed, as well as the furniture.

On the lighter side of 100kg, living is that much easier, and that much cheaper. One does not need to eat a pail of rice and all the meat and vegetables to go with, maybe a bit obese but not too heavy on the knees and the feet and the heart. There is no need to eat like a glutton, wasting so much food that is totally unnecessary. The intake of a 150kg is going to be more than twice that of a 60kg, and more of everything.

This is a very simple analogy of what a population of 5m, 6m and 7m is going to be like. If we can get along fine with 5m, why pushing for 6m or more? Can we live with 5m and remain healthy? The Govt’s view is that we are hitting a crisis of a life time if we don’t go the 7m way. The reasons given were not convincing and never look like anything of a crisis. There will be major adjustments that needed to be made. The adjustments are much easier at the current level than when it balloons to 7m. It will then be a 7m kind of problem.

There is often the call to be mean and lean and fighting fit. 7m is not going to be fighting fit but going to slow down everything as the cost to sustain a 7m population is going to be very much more difficult and the returns will be marginal. The fact that the GDP will only grow by 2 – 2.5% for a 100k increase of heads annually just does not make reasonable sense. Why are the social and other costs and consequences not spelt out for the people? So far everyone has been told of the good things but no one is telling the bad part.

We all know what it is like of a 150kg body. The similarities need no imaginations.

Japan, the first of 21 Demands in the 21st Century

Japan is back to its mischief once again like it did to colonise Korea, Manchuria and China and eventually the whole of Southeast Asia. During its imperialist days, it repeated fabricated acts and incidents in China and blamed it on the weak Qing Govt and later the ROC. And after creating every incident it will demand apologies, compensation and special concessions from China. It kept on bullying China and eventually invaded China in an attempt to colonise the country.

Japan has started to create incidents to provoke China by first making a fictitious buying out of the Diaoyu Islands which it snatched from China in the late 19^th Century. This has forced the Chinese hands to exert their rights over the islands. The Japanese escalated the tension by scrambling fighter aircrafts and naval crafts to intercept Chinese surveillance planes and ships. The latest tension is the accusation that a Chinese frigate locked radar onto a Japanese destroyer. This is like the Tonkin Incident when the Americans accused the Vietnamese for ramming their patrol boats against an American warship.

And the haughty and arrogant Japanese PM Abe is making his demand that China apologise for the act. This is going to remind the Chinese of the 21 Demands Japan made on China to control China and seized Chinese territories. Many Chinese are going to be riled by this demand and will react in a hostile manner and raising the temperature in the island dispute. Japan is provoking China to defend itself and to accuse China of acting aggressively. This is likely to be part of an American Japanese plot to show to the Southeast Asian nations that China is indeed an aggressive big power.

What can China do? China cannot run away from this fight. It has to take the Japanese and the Americans on or it would have endless troubles and even losing Diaoyu Islands for good. China must demand that Japan withdraw all its ships from Diaoyu Islands or face the consequence of war. This is the new bottom line.

How much have GIC and Temasek contributed…

How much have GIC and Temasek contributed to the national coffer annually? The combined asset managed by these two SWFs could be near a trillion. One used to claim a return of 17% annually but lately the numbers seemed to be more down to earth, something like 5%. Correct me if I am wrong on this as I am recalling it from some faded memories.

At 5% interest for a sum of $1 trillion it will work out to $50b annually. It the sum managed is $600b, the profit is some $30b annually. DBS Bank’s profit is about $3b lately and used to be between $1b to $2b. The two funds are equivalent to 15 to 25 DBS Banks in terms of profit. In a more general term, the amount could be the profits of a whole industrial estate like Jurong. It is big money and can make the budget that much easier on the Govt.

With this kind of profits, the contribution to the national coffer must be quite substantial and is a major source of national income. How have these returns benefited the people, in what ways, how much, not many people really know. It would be nice for the Govt to tell the people how great the contributions were from these two very profitable organizations and how the citizens have greatly benefited from them. Would there be some numbers coming out soon?

What is Singapore’s GDP now? $300b or $400b? The White Paper is planning for a GDP growth of around 2% or 2.5%. At 2% growth rate, the GDP should increase by $6b or $8b using the $300b as base. And this is what the White Paper seeks to achieve with the import of nearly a 100,000 immigrants annually over the next 17 years. This is really pathetic for the added social and economic costs of housing an additional 1.6m people in the island.

Compare the profits that could be generated by GIC and Temasek combined? With a lower average of $30b in annual profits, do we really need to import 1.6m people just for a token $6b to 8b increase in our GDP and to live with the consequences of a highly densely populated city? If the two SWFs could increase their profits by 10%, they could do what the import of 1.6m people could do. That would be neat isn’t it?

Now I have a better proposal than the White Paper and the WP’s paper. No need to increase the population at all. Just work on the productivity of the two SWFs and to raise their annual profits and there is no need to live in a congested concrete jungle with everything shrinking except the population.

Lim Wee Kiat prefers suicide to euthanasia

“The feedback I received from my friends was that the alternative plans would kill the economy and this is euthanasia for Singapore. Between suicide for PAP versus euthanasia for the country… my choice is clear, I support the White Paper.” Said Lim Wee Kiat.

This is the first time that a PAP MP spoke honestly about what he thought of the White Paper. He knew that it was political suicide. This is one thing that the people will deal to the PAP comes 2016. What is of greater concern is whether the White Paper would also lead the country into a suicidal path. Many think so except the 77 and are speaking out to stop this self destruction down the road. The fact that the country has come to this juncture where the PAP admitted is a crisis of a life time and going along with the White Paper, a road of no return, speaks for the quality of the Govt to lead the country to a safe landing. Sinkies are now offered an option to jump from a frying pan into the deep blue sea.

Why not give the WP’s proposal a chance as they have not contributed to this crisis that needs another no choice do will die and don’t do will also die proposition of the PAP? The PAP may try to run down the WP proposal or any proposal from anyone, and to call it euthanasia. But that is PAP’s view of things and the WP did not think so and neither do the people. On record, every policy or decision by the PAP is a near perfect solution as claimed, a most well thought out solution, carefully calibrated, but still ended up with this crisis of a life time. It is also a historical fact that none, nothing from the opposition will ever be deemed as workable. Thank God that this is the case and the WP can sleep well that they did not contribute anything to the current crisis and needs another crisis loaded White Paper that is, as expected, touted as the only solution for the day.

Could the current crisis be avoided if the PAP had borrowed some ideas from the opposition, listen a little and not to adopt a ‘knows all’ and infallible attitude? The PAP deserves the full credit of what is happening today and the crisis that it has brought to the people. They have adopted the deaf frog attitude to do what it thought were best that lands the country into the current state of affair.

Without the Whip and without any regards to party loyalty, how many of the 77 would vote against this White Paper? When Hsien Loong shouts charge, how many will be charging with him and how many will just stay put and watch him charging ahead? Hsien Loong can be comforted by having the ministers running beside him, and of course Lim Wee Kiat and a few others.

The GE may come much sooner than 2016. This White Paper could have caused a serious rift within the PAP and a break could come into the open at the earliest opportune time. Surely not every PAP MP is agreeable to this suicidal path. In the last breakout the breakaway camp formed the Barisan Socialis, But history was not on their side and PAP came up tops. Barisan Socialis is history. The impending break could turn the table and the PAP could be on the losing end. All it needs is 37 PAP MPs to walk away to form a coalition with the WP, they could form a majority and the next Govt. This would force the PAP to call for a GE prematurely.

Don’t say not possible.

Who is qualified to comment on national policies?

‘According to the snapshot which TR Emeritus (TRE) received from a regular TRE reader, a Facebook user calling himself “Zhi Hao” has opined that only those who have studied economics, law, sociology, history, anthropology, public administration, public policy, national politics, international relations, comparative politics, psychology, political organization and political theory are qualified to comment on “policy the government came out with”.’ This is an extract of an article posted in TRE.

I am posting this article in jest. If we agree with this Zhi Hao, doctors and engineers, architects, among those excluded from his list should not be commenting on govt policies and national issues. But can doctors, engineers and architects be politicians and sit in Parliament talking politics and making decisions on national issues? : ) Taxi drivers and the Ah Pehs and Ah Mahs in kopitiams sure not qualify to talk politics. And all those who never make it to universities cannot also.

This is definitely from a young man. It is good to be young and say what you like when you are young and when people know you are young. The young will grow up one day.

Weekend is good for such snippets. Sinkies shall enjoy their blessings while it lasts.